SIR: I write in response to your readers' overwhelming support in defence of Ruth Kelly's second pregnancy. In leaping to the defence of Ms Kelly, these vociferous defenders of working mothers have completely missed the whole point of Mr Cooper's criticisms.

I would not challenge the rights of mothers to work if they so wish. Nevertheless, we must consider that the demanding job of MP is rather an exceptional one; being vocational rather than occupational. Thus it demands a full commitment and thorough dedication to serve as parliamentary representative.

The position of MP is a daunting enough prospect for anyone, especially one of Ms Kelly's tender and inexperienced years. Well justified then is Mr Cooper to question Ms Kelly's suitability, and dedication, challenging whether or not she is really able to represent adequately the constituents of Bolton West. She must understand that the job of MP requires that her first duty is to put the interests of her constituents before all else, and that other matters must come second.

Unlike some of your readers, I was ignorant of Ms Kelly's advanced pregnancy during her election campaign. It certainly was not mentioned in any of her election literature. Had it been so, I, for one, would have considered the timing of her first pregnancy to have been detrimental, making her unsuitable, to represent wholeheartedly the interests of the electorate. I would then have voted for another candidate. Thus it has proved, as her overt interest over the provision of a creche in the House of Commons has been a prior concern.

Not yet convinced

(Name and

address supplied)

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.